Hi Wolfram, On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 09:14:40PM GMT, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > I am not a big fan of the use of the word client. It's not used > > anywhere in the documentation and it's too generic as a name for > > giving it a specific meaning. > > > > I've seen already some confusion amongst reviewers and > > maintainers when Easwar sent the patch in drm. > > > > If it depends on me, I would stick to the only controller/target > > and render obsolet the use of the word "client" in the i2c > > context. > > Have you read the paragraph "Synonyms" from patch 6? I don't think we > can obsolete client because: > > $ git grep 'struct i2c_client \*client' | wc -l > 6100 yes, I know, but I would be happy if we start changing i2c_client with i2c_target and at least saying that "target" is the preferred name for what was called "client" until now. I think we should start somewhere from using the new naming provided by the documentation. Other than that, I'm not blocking the patch, it's a great improvement! I'm just trying use this chance to discuss and bring up new opinions. Thanks, Andi
